MCCLELLAN
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

M.D. Fla. | 2024-03-28
No. 8:22-cv-2831
2024 FFL 8063 District Court, M.D. Florida (2024)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant the plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney's fees.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff sought attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion. Neither party objected t…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Amanda A. Sansone's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 24), entered on March 8, 2024, recommending that Mr. McClellan's Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees Pursuant to Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (Doc. # 21) be granted.

As of this date, neither party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for the parties to file such objections has elapsed. The Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation and grants the Motion.

Discussion

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge’s report and

1

recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F. 3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994).

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 24) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.

(2) Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (Doc. # 21) is GRANTED.

2

(3) Plaintiff is awarded $5,022.33 in attorney's fees. Unless the Department of Treasury determines that Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government must pay the fees to Plaintiff’s counsel in accordance with Plaintiff’s assignment of fees.

(4) The Clerk is directed to enter an amended judgment accordingly.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 28th day of March, 2024.

Kinginn M. Holy Co

VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw